Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

A little noticed cause of the failure of gun control

I have often reflected on the extent to which opposition to gun control derives from the deep masculine instinct for defense, not so much of himself as of his wife and children. Even men who do not own a gun, and indeed have no serious intention of ever owning one, still feel within them a profound sense that their very liberty is bound up in their power to defend their household, to maintain it safely as a kind of sanctuary from a dangerous world for those whom they are called to protect.

It is true, of course, that liberalism is clueless about this. All these male hang-ups strike the liberal as positively bizarre. Nothing perplexes and aggravates the him more than evidence of felt obligations pertaining to men and not to women (and vice versa). To the liberal it is simply irrational for a man to oppose gun control on the grounds that, off at the end, he cannot be free if he cannot purchase a weapon for use in the defense of his home, where his wife and children reside. But the rationalism of the liberal is not the rationality of the world as it is. The technocrat who proposes to resolve violence by regulation of weapons, by reducing poverty (always imagined by liberals as the taproot of crime), and by filling the media up with happy talk about acceptance and tolerance, speaks a language so abstracted from the real concerns of citizens under threat from armed criminals as to be functionally worthless.

Presented to a responsible husband and father, the usual stale technocratic answer to such horrors must always return void. There is an ineradicable rationality, rooted in the biological nature of man, in the image of man as the protector of his family. From the dawn of mankind to the crack of doom, few things shall cause a man’s skin to crawl and horripilate more reliably than the prospect of the invasion of his home and violation of his family.

It is against this instinct, this brute evolutionary logic, that the gun control advocate toils; and usually toils in vain. The American father can see well enough that though guns are severely restricted in Great Britain, crime is emancipated like never before. A Parliamentary report some years back delivered this staggering statistic: from 1900 – 1997 the rate of “indictable offences per thousand population” went from 2.4 to 89.1, an increase of over 3700%. It is a pitiful tale: Great Britain went from as close to as crime-free a society as men have achieved, to a degenerate anarchy characterized by lawless violence in many urban areas. Many American fathers are also well aware of the rarely noted story of how often violent criminals in the US are thwarted by armed citizens; they may even be aware of the celebrated studies years ago of imprisoned felons, which revealed a greater fear, among these incarcerated thugs, of armed citizens than of the police.

Liberal policies rest on the fancy that it is possible for families to be succored without empowering fathers to assume the role that nature and nature’s God has given them. It seems increasingly clear to me that the frustration of gun control advocates results in part from their isolation from these deep currents in men. It is probable that compromises could be achieved in the area of policy if the liberal side were prepared to reconcile itself to certain facts about the human family — above all the fact that the masculine instinct to shelter and protect his family from harm is not some atavistic holdover from primitive ages, but rather a profound component of what it means to be human.

Comments (68)

My dad likes guns in part because when he can't be there, they will level the field for his wife and children. My husband worries because we can't afford a shotgun for home defense yet, and he knows how useless "defense sprays" can be.

To add to your point-- guns not only let me defend their families, they let men make their families safer when they can't defend them.

Impossible. To do so would contradict one of the great liberal dogmas of all time, that is the absolute equality and interchangeability of gender roles. Next you'll suppose that copulation is an act between a husband and wife, that is a non-transsexual male and a non-transsexual female, and they are *obligatory liberal sneer* meant to "breed".

Were that bad enough, you seem to imply that regular citizens have some sort of right to not be complete victims for their whole, miserable lives. If peas - er...citizens were allowed to actually do anything for themselves, including say, wipe their own backsides, they might be become unmanageable. Absolutely not! We must depend upon the police to solve any disputes, and should they not arrive in time to save you or your family from violation and violence, it is but a small price to pay for my - er the greater good.

Yes, and besides those you mention, in other ways too. To the liberal both private property and the family are institutions fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is that both serve as buffers between the individual and the state. If this makes defense of them somewhat suspect philosophically, why would we suppose that this would not also be corrosive of the will to defend them literally?

Paul, this sort of post is out of date and quite fact free. Plenty of folks on the left have firearms. The subset of folks who favor completely banning all firearms from private ownership, as opposed to some level of regulation, is vanishingly small and has been shrinking for some time. I'm a life member of the NRA and have no problem, as some have discovered to their grief, defending my person and property. When I wander western back roads I'm usually discretely armed (although hardly dangerous).

"Liberal policies rest on the fancy that it is possible for families to be succored without empowering fathers to assume the role that nature and nature’s God has given them."

I would also take issue with your sexism. Firearms are a great equalizer. Just as your view of liberalism bears little relationship to reality so too your apparent image of the "little woman" cowering in fear while her man deals with the threat. Like plenty of liberals, plenty of women own firearms and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves and their family.
Your brush is way too broad; you need to read more widely and stop believing everything you hear on the right.

Part of the reason "diversity is strength" is that it - diversity - empowers liberalism to equivocate. Consistency is no virtue in liberalism: quite the opposite, and explicitly so.

It is much more difficult (for anti-liberals) to oppose a unified anti-unity like liberalism than it is to oppose a self-consciously unified people, nation, religion, community, or what have you. With liberalism, lying and equivocation is a strength, as it were: almost as if it were a product of the Father of Lies, exercising His unholy powers.

al, you're so weird you're funny.
Are you sure you're not dangerous, do you get lost wandering those back roads? And wandering to what purpose. That's right, wandering usually is without purpose, but if it has purpose then you're not wandering. Is the wandering any thing like your thought processes, what may be called your mind?
Surely you don't wander to cause "grief", but just how while wandering do you defend "person and property"? I assume you're the person but whence the property? Mayhap a tuft from your front lawn, or a cow from your barn, or that sweat stained glossy of Barack Obama. Can't be your wallet, that you would gladly give away, or at least a couple of spare food stamps.
Ah, you wander in search of reality, but by implication you have already found it, or is it the Mother Lode of Reality your wanderlust pushes you on to? Do you mean you can't find it in that Mexican newspaper that's going out of business, the NY Times.
Despair not, the wonderful thing about reality is that every liberal can imagine their own.
And don't shoot your neighbors chickens by mistake Roy Rogers.

Plenty of folks on the left have firearms. The subset of folks who favor completely banning all firearms from private ownership, as opposed to some level of regulation, is vanishingly small and has been shrinking for some time. I'm a life member of the NRA and have no problem, as some have discovered to their grief, defending my person and property.

Good to hear. (I think.)

Just as your view of liberalism bears little relationship to reality so too your apparent image of the "little woman" cowering in fear while her man deals with the threat. Like plenty of liberals, plenty of women own firearms and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves and their family.

I have no idea where you got this "little women cowering" image. Certainly not my post, which concerned the basic instinct and purpose in men to protect and defend their wives and children. My argument is that this instinct will not change no matter how much liberalism is forced down our throats. The sexual constitution of men and women is rooted in our biological and physiological nature. It is not characterized by equality. It is obvious, for instance, that when it comes to sexuality -- understood not as some squalid coupling but in its fullest expression of courtship, marriage, intercourse and above all the rearing of children -- women are markedly superior to men. They hold all the cards, except the meager one of sheer physical strength. With the advent of contraceptive and artificial conception technology, the man's role in reduced almost nothing; and with the establishment of the wicked abortion regime, even conception brings him zero assurance. Only in a strong traditional marriage does a modern man ever experience his procreative capacity in anything approaching fullness.

Nevertheless, what I said above remains true: the role of the man in the sexual constitution is provision and protection.

Paul, I went in the equality direction as you emphasized firearms and I take it as a given that women are as protective (or more so) of their offspring as men. Firearms make women, who in our species tend to be physically smaller and weaker then males, the equal of any man once a certain training threshold is passed.

Al, your NRA-friendly version of "liberalism" wd. definitely get you drummed out of the progressive ranks in Great Britain. These "outdated stereotypes" are very much in-date in Europe and Great Britain and among many on the Left in the U.S. Perhaps you didn't notice the suggestion, which would have been funny if it weren't so horrifically stupid, in response to the Loughner shooting, of a 1000-foot gun-free zone around elected officials. This isn't outdated. This was proposed in the last couple of weeks. Sometimes I truly believe that people who propose such things have a quasi-personal view of guns, as though if such laws are set up, the guns themselves are going to jump out of people's pockets out of fear of arrest before entering the zone where they are prohibited. Because as any sane person knows, such a law is not going to protect elected officials by stopping human lunatics.

Oh, and these "outdated stereotypes" fit very much with the insanity a year or so ago (not really that long) when some in Great Britain suggested forcing everyone to buy kitchen knives with which one couldn't stab, since criminals were committing so much knife violence. That's the liberal attitude--the object causes the crime. If it isn't yours, more power to you, but you need to be talking to your fellow leftists, not to Paul.

Lydia, my point was that my experience fails to find the homogeneous attitude towards firearms on the left that you all assume exists. As with First Amendment issues I'm a citizen and resident of the United States and do understand what attitudes that may or may not exist in Europe or the UK have to do with U.S. politics. As I frequently suggest, you would do well to stop using information sources that have led you into these false beliefs.

The firearms ban was proposed by Peter King who is a Republican and who, based on his voting record leans conservative; he certainly is no liberal. I assume it would be modeled on the school zone ban in 18 U.S.C. 922q. I don't see how such a ban would be enforced and writing one that would be constitutional and effective would likely be a challenge.

do [not] understand what attitudes that may or may not exist in Europe or the UK have to do with U.S. politics.

I realize that you don't understand this. You say so frequently. It isn't really hard: The American left frequently expresses admiration for European ways of doing things. Unfortunately, so do some conservatives. That worries me. But the left does it more. The trend-lines are toward increasing imitation of European legal set-ups in the U.S. on a number of fronts and for continual pushing in that direction. For example, in the area of "hate crimes," the underlying crime can be relatively trivial, and as in the Tulsa case I mentioned last week in a thread, U.S. harassment laws can be used in a way that functionally mimics European "hate speech" laws. Certainly the knee-jerk response of suggesting greater gun control in the U.S. in response to any and all gun attacks--you would have to be dead not to know that this comes up again and again, in case after case--has a very definite European flavor. The drive for single-payer healthcare in the U.S. is a sign of the same Euro-envy on the American left. (How often--tediously often--did we hear how much better these things are done in Europe during the healthcare debate?) And so on and so forth.

We wd. be ostrich-like fools to pretend that what happens in Europe is totally irrelevant to what is going to be pushed for in the U.S. Certainly there is influence of ideas there, especially among progressives who regard their fellow right-wing Americans as troglodytes who embarrass them in the eyes of the more enlightened world at large.

If a right-winger said, "What does it matter to me what attitudes are like in Europe?" he'd be accused of stupidity and isolationism. Evidently you think you can get away with it and appear smart. Don't quite know why that is supposed to be.

There are plenty of liberals in Europe and they’re part of the human race, I think! Perhaps you’d want to define ‘protection’ relative to a perceived threat: In a country where people are legally entitled to carry weapons there’s an incentive for people to carry weapons; in a country where there’s no such right there’s no such incentive. Is it the suggestion that, where gun ownership is legal, only males with dependents should be allowed to carry guns?

Last we heard from him on this subject he was lecturing me about claims of knowledge of lunatic motives, and here he imputes them to a commenter he dislikes (and who clearly dislikes him). He is truly the Teacher on civility and care in argumentation.

That said, I have no idea what johnt is really talking about either. Let's lay off the personal imprecations, folks.

Meanwhile, the bulk of Al's substance is mainly a non sequitur vis-a-vis the point of my post. I made no statement on the matter of women bearing arms; I therefore feel no compulsion to comment on that. That I support it is hopefully evident by now. Nor did I expressly cast any doubt on the idea that "women are as protective (or more so) of their offspring as men." Again, I wasn't commenting on women and their motives. That there, fellas, is a subject I would approach only with great trepidation.

But the part that the Left is quite fully clueless about is that there are differing casts of mind, which spring from biological and physiological sources, and issue in socially, politically, economically and philosophically important consequences, when one considers the subject of men and women. Male and female he made them is a profound statement, not a mere detail against the towering edifice of abstract equality. I certainly believe in the infinite worth of all men and women; there is the source of equality for me, that we are all material instantiations of immortal souls who one day must give an account of ourselves. The ritual denunciation of sexism, however, presupposes a philosophical predicate that I do not accept. Another non sequitur.

As with the Tucson thread, I'm left with a touch of wonder if Al is a man really capable of reasoned discourse.

So I'd ask, what do you actually think about my substantive claim that there is something in men which infuses the protection of wife and children into their very identity, such that being armed, or at least the possibility of the same, is a thing felt to be very important to liberty itself?

There are plenty of liberals in Europe and they’re part of the human race, I think!

Are you implying that you take me to believe otherwise?

Is it the suggestion that, where gun ownership is legal, only males with dependents should be allowed to carry guns?

Certainly not. I oppose gun control and would not think to forbid women from bearing arms in law. Wherever did that idea come from?

I would, however -- to the extent that it is within my power -- set the norm as fathers, husbands, brothers being the preferred bearer of arms in the family. But I would also expect the girls to be taught how to respect guns and use them safely.

In a country where people are legally entitled to carry weapons there’s an incentive for people to carry weapons; in a country where there’s no such right there’s no such incentive.

I think there is something to that. The qualification is that where there is no legal right to carry there are still violent crimes, even violent crimes with guns; so the duty felt by fathers and husbands remains. I guarantee fathers in London aren't free from worry about violence being visited on their wives and daughters.

Relatedly, inherited mores and customs -- in a word, tradition -- play an important role. And laws feed into that. The change that has come over Great Britain is therefore somewhat puzzling. In America the tradition of an armed citizenry is very strong still. I think the British and American traditions are sufficiently close that comparison may be made, but I don't insist on that. I will happily confine myself to America if that clarifies things for you.

Following up on Overseas slightly bizarre way of putting the argument, I am interested in thinking more about this statement:

"So I'd ask, what do you actually think about my substantive claim that there is something in men which infuses the protection of wife and children into their very identity, such that being armed, or at least the possibility of the same, is a thing felt to be very important to liberty itself?"

Because Overseas does seem to be correct in the sense that the rest of the West, which does enjoy a certain amount of personal freedom, nevertheless, seems to be content to forgo the freedom of individuals to bear arms. I think Australia banned individual firearm ownership relatively recently when some crazy opened fire on schoolchildren. Clearly, their men were willing to trade what they believed would be more security for less individual freedom. It seems strange to me and I wonder what laws are like in the rest of the world (e.g. in Latin America or Asian countries like Japan)?

That qualification means that there is _nothing_ to what Overseas said. I'm _astonished_ that you would make such a concession followed by such a sensible "qualification"--a qualification that makes an AK-47-sized hole in the "something."

_Of course_ there is an incentive to carry arms in a country where arms are prohibited. Surely you must know about the violence that takes place in European countries, gangs beating people up on public transportation, young people killed, etc. I'm not necessarily saying it is a greater amount of violence than takes place in, say, Detroit. That's not my point. My point is that the incentive of self-defense and defense of one's family is _of course_ still there, because man is fallen and there are bad men. And either they will use illegal guns or they will use knives or claw hammers or their fists, and being armed to be able to respond to them is something a man who is a man should feel an incentive to do.

Here are a couple things for you: Italy used to have (I believe they finally repealed it) a "parity" law that said you couldn't respond to force with greater force, that if your attacker had a knife, for example, you couldn't respond to him with a gun. How's that for a European attitude toward "incentives"? Or how about this one: An actress in the UK saw a group of thugs approaching her house through the back yard in a threatening manner. She was cooking. She lifted the knife she had in her hand and waved it toward them, and they left. She was evidently imprudent enough to tell this to the police, who told her she had no right to wave the knife. Hello? There's _no such incentive_ to be armed where guns are illegal? What??

That qualification means that there is _nothing_ to what Overseas said. I'm _astonished_ that you would make such a concession followed by such a sensible "qualification"--a qualification that makes an AK-47-sized hole in the "something."

Shhhhh, Lydia.

I'm only conceding that the presence of weapons incentivizes even the wise to get armed. Since it is the sheerest utopia to imagine a world bereft of weapons, that incentive seems to be a pretty stable constant, with only variation in the details of the weapons across each age.

In other words, yes, the second clause of Overseas' comparison -- "in a country where there’s no such right there’s no such incentive" -- is basically false. The incentive and the right are only very tenuously related.

‘I would be _so_ motivated to be armed over there. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be allowed.’

Precisely; Europeans are unlikely to be faced by people carrying guns.

Paul

‘Are you implying that you take me to believe otherwise?’

Of course not! I meant to deflate an argument. If there’s a natural tendency to protect dependents then it holds for people everywhere and is unlikely to have something in particular to do with a legal right to carry weapons, which is not universally entrenched; hence my ‘quick-fix’ suggestion to overcome this. Now I understand your position on gun ownership and thanks for setting out. I did suspect I'd misread something: I took ‘policy’ in your closing line to be a reference to gun control policy in particular.

Paul is making a bold claim about human nature. If I point out a problem and propose a quick solution, then if Paul accepts it he’s making no concession to me! I wasn’t affirming the ‘quick fix’; I didn’t need to. But I can’t see what’s so controversial about it either.

Jeff Singer, there's a pretty simple explanation for what you're talking about re. the rest of the world:

Clearly, their men were willing to trade what they believed would be more security for less individual freedom.

Since we know that's a false sense of security, we know they were duped. People can be duped.

I think that, quite simply, American traditions better preserve natural categories here than do the relatively new Euro-British "traditions" (which are, in the grand scheme, too recent to be called traditions). I think Britain got badly messed up, fiscally especially but in other ways too, by WWII, and that her citizens got used to draconian policies, and all of this was part of the cause of Britain's going socialist and eventually giving up the right to bear arms. Obviously, if one reads older British works, one sees a people whose traditions strongly involve both hunting and self-defense. That's all been eroded now, and it's a sad thing, but I'm not sure there's anything there to explain in the sense of wondering whether the British men are on to something in their willingness to give up their right to bear arms. Remember, too, that Britain never had a written Constitution, which made it easier for the government to seize certain rights away from them.

I wish I could re-find a video on the gun ban in England that I saw at a blog a while back. It was striking--seeing all those Brits tamely turning in their guns to the police, and then seeing how they are not more safe now. I don't remember who put it up.

That it's false. The incentive to own guns is that you may need to defend yourself and/or your family against wicked and violent men. This incentive does not go away if guns are banned in a country. It's that simple.

I frequent a flashlight collectimg site and about a year ago a Brit posted a plea for a flashlight he could buy to blind attackers so he could give it to his wife, since they couldn't carry a gun or a knife or even use martial arts by law against an attacker. It was pretty pathetic. The forum participants basically told him that the brightest flashlight might buy two seconds to run away. Of course, now you can buy a 1 watt laser for 228 dollars which will blind a man, permanently, in, maybe a second. Don't know if those are considered deadly weapons, but a Chinese company sells them to any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the money and without a background check. George Lucas tried to sue the company because he claimed the flashlight-sized lasers were an infringement on the light saber.

The incentive to own guns is that you may need to defend yourself and/or your family against wicked and violent men. This incentive does not go away if guns are banned in a country. It's that simple.

Exactly. Overseas, my concession was to the idea that incentives have an effect. I do not think it possible in the modern West to have a society were perfectly rational incentives to self-defense do not strongly incline toward an armed citizenry. Britons may be less likely to face a criminal with a handgun, but they are actually more likely to be robbed or burgled, and more likely, moreover, to be utterly defenseless when an armed criminal does threaten them.

but they are actually more likely to be robbed or burgled, and more likely, moreover, to be utterly defenseless when an armed criminal does threaten them.

My understanding from stats I've seen over the last decade is that one is actually more likely to be robbed in Britain or Australia than in the United States. Even worse, one is more likely to suffer an armed robbery while at home there than here.

Most of our murders are minority-on-minority and happen in poor areas. Adjusted for that, the United States actually has a very low crime rate. Even most of those problems can be traced back to the destruction of the black family more than any other factor.

To recap: I never argued for the ‘quick-fix’. It was a suggestion to you for getting round what seemed like an easy counterexample to your thesis; Jeff described the way I put it as ‘slightly bizarre’ and is commendable on his use of understatement.

I agree with you and Mike T that where gun ownership is illegal people may still face criminals; there are teenagers with knives, for example. But there’s less violent crime in Europe than in the US and Lydia is right about a principle of ‘proportionality’ being entrenched in most European legislations; it's not exactly shocking that you’re liable to face charges for decapitating with a butcher knife who slapped you in the face, is it? But the argument is about guns: You don't see a link between having an incentive to own a gun and the legality of gun ownership. I’m listening; but the way I see it is that forgoing your own freedom to bear arms is the price of forgoing your neighbour’s freedom to bear arms; and this seems to make sense, like non-proliferation treaties between states e.g. The concept of 'fear of the opponent' goes back to Thucydides. In the UK in particular people don’t normally expect even the police to be armed! It seems to be the weakest case to make comparisons with Europe.

But let’s ditch the ‘quick-fix’ and go back to your argument. I guess you don’t want it to reduce to an ad hoc assertion about American males; nor do you want to say that women owning guns dis-empower the American male. Yet this seems to be a clear implication: Just look at what both Foxfier and al said. If a woman bears arms what’s the American male to do? Shooting is probably the only Olympic sport where women outperform men.

Personally, I’d be more interested to hear you expand on the ways you think policy compromises could be achieved between left and right wingers. But if you want to base your thesis on the argument put forward in this post, there seem to be some hurdles for you to overcome; confining the case to America won’t do if the argument is about human nature. But what you certainly needn’t do is to make concessions to me! - the thought of which Lydia seems unable to bear, even where it's over positions I don’t hold.

I believe you are misunderstanding my purpose in this post. I am not, strictly speaking, arguing against gun control; I am attempting to describe a major reason why gun control is a dead end for liberals in America (remember above where I said I would confine my remarks to the American context for purposes of clarity; remember also that the only non-American comparison I made was to Great Britain, not mainland Europe).

So I'll stipulate that mainland Europe (but not necessarily the UK) is a legitimate counterexample. Feel better?

To reformulate my argument with all that in mind: to a liberal like you, Overseas (or do you object to the label?), I would strongly recommend taking seriously the political fact that a major source of opposition to gun control is the nature of American men, especially married men with children. To dismiss all that as mere sexism, as Al has done, is to basically fold up the tent of reasoned discourse that aims at persuading.

Now, as to the interesting question of how the "nature of American men" relates to "the nature of men as such," I'm probably lacking in the resources to resolve it. I conceded up above that there is definitely a cultural component here; can I be forgiven for the dread phrase "American exceptionalism"? It seems to fit as a description. There is clearly a strain of character in American history, which embraces the keeping and bearing of arms as a facet of liberty or independence. Even Al concedes to it, when he asseverates that "this sort of post is out of date and quite fact free. Plenty of folks on the left have firearms. The subset of folks who favor completely banning all firearms from private ownership, as opposed to some level of regulation, is vanishingly small and has been shrinking for some time."

If he is right, than the liberal gun controller faces not merely right-wing opponents but a sizable portion of left-wing ones as well.

The sexual constitution of men and women is rooted in our biological and physiological nature. It is not characterized by equality. It is obvious, for instance, that when it comes to sexuality -- understood not as some squalid coupling but in its fullest expression of courtship, marriage, intercourse and above all the rearing of children -- women are markedly superior to men. They hold all the cards, except the meager one of sheer physical strength.

It is assuredly *not* true that "women hold all the cards" -- that is a present-day "liberal" myth ultimately grounded in Victorian-era cheap sentimentality and pedestalization of the female sex. A women "holds all the cards" only with respect to a man who is afraid -- or has been trained out of his masculinity -- to *be* a man. And, she tends to despise him.

Civilization involves (among other things) men submitting their more animal sexual urges to the rhythms of femininity. Especially when we have the sense to consider human sexuality in its fullness (that is, including procreation and the rearing of children) the male role is fundamentally a submissive one. Which means that healthy civilizations must permit and encourage ways for the male nature, which in sexuality is forbidden its deepest desires, to find full expression. Historically, the military, scholarship, business and fatherhood were our common outlets for men. Part of our ruin is the coerced submission of these things to the feminine patterns as well.

Many years ago, I took my sister and her daughters to the museums in Chicago (it was a five-hour drive from my city to hers and the next day a two-hour drive to Chicago). I had planned to visit multiple of the museums on that trip: Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium, and if time allowed, either the Field Museum of Natural History or the Museum of Science and Industry. We started with the Shedd Aquarium.

It was a very crowded there, that day -- there were so many people (and the lighting so faint) that a small child became “invisible” a mere ten feet away. There were so many people trying to talk to one another that one could not hear one’s own voice. And, the lighting is kept very low, being mostly the diffusion from the fish-tanks, such that one can barely see other people even when it isn’t crowded. (Also, if I recall, it was unpleasantly warm and humid in the building.)

So, even though I knew intellectually that my nieces were in no danger, my body and psyche were screaming that I needed to keep them within arm’s reach, otherwise I cannot ensure their safety (for, I could not even *see* them if some sudden danger were to befall them). They, of course, being children, and excited at at the things to see, would not stay near-by, but ran from tank to tank to tank. And my sister, in this one instance, was not being very helpful in trying to keep them under control. Finally, I had had enough … and so I called-off the entire holiday and took us back to my sister’s house.

At the time, I didn’t understand just *why* I needed to keep them within arm’s reach, and why the stress of their disobedience (and my sister’s non-cooperation with me) was so great that I finally took them back home.

Ilion, my husband would be exactly the same way in those circumstances. When the children were very little, he did not like to have them running far away across, say, a field at the park, way out of reach, even when he could see them. And to be sure, a very little child will literally run away, so far as to be out of sight, without realizing he is doing so. No doubt that's happened to most parents of a toddler at some time or other.

Civilization involves (among other things) men submitting their more animal sexual urges to the rhythms of femininity.

Actually, no. Civilization involves (among other things) men submitting their more animal sexual urges to the dictates of patriarchy and their own membership in a lineage of men. When "men submit[] their more animal sexual urges to the rhythms of femininity" one's society necessarily becomes matriarchal and essentially fatherless (and violent), as a significant number of my own ancestors lived as recently as four or five generations ago, and as increasingly numerous present-day Americans are living, and not to anyone's long-term benefit.

Women didn't invent the sort of civilization we have in mind, men did; and they did it to tame themselves and one another. And for the most part, most women don't give a damn about the social and cultural requirements of maintaining such a civilization.

No doubt that's happened to most parents of a toddler at some time or other.

My two oldest nieces (cousins, one the 11-years-older sister of the two I mentioned above) did this to me once at a mall. On purpose. I saw then nod to one another when we got to the top of the escalator, and then take off in opposite directions.

The propensity of small children to “wander off” (whether intentionally or not) is why I think those child-harness -- that some “caring persons” get so irate about when they see parents using them -- are such a great idea. My response would be, “To Hell with your “concern” about my child’s “self-esteem.” *My* concern is protecting my child.”

Actually, no. Civilization involves (among other things) men submitting their more animal sexual urges to the dictates of patriarchy and their own membership in a lineage of men.

Are these two mutually exclusive?

Anyway, submitting my sexuality to patriarchy is not a concept I wish to pursue at any length. It seems to me that with the traditional Western man-to-man relationship the sexual is emphatically secondary to other aspects of life.

Masculine endeavors, properly understood, evidence an impatience with the fairer sex and its temptresses. Therein lies part of my objection to women in combat. These are things where the introduction of sexual incidents as a common and constant source of tension and excitement is a very bad thing. (Also why gays in the military is worrisome.)

Paul, I agree that gun control in the US is a dead end. Even if there was a constitutional amendment I don’t see how civilian disarmament could be effectively enforced; which is a disincentive for seeking to effect an amendment at all.

Not really; I’m more ambitious and never content with positions susceptible to counterexample; in fact the UK is the better counterexample, because in the rest of Europe the police do carry arms.

‘to a liberal like you, Overseas (or do you object to the label?)’

I think I would, for the reason I gave above; labels aren’t particularly useful when there’s no position behind that can be consistently articulated. As you say, ‘the liberal gun controller faces not merely right-wing opponents but a sizable portion of left-wing ones as well.’

You’re certainly right there’s a cultural component involved here. People with distinct histories find themselves in different situations and take different things for granted. In opposite ways, the question of gun ownership is in principle settled in Europe as it is in the US: We just don’t want to mistake for a fact about human nature what we’ve been merely brought up to take for granted. ‘American exceptionalism’ does sound rather suspicious to me; as if you don’t mind your thesis reducing to an ad hoc assertion about American males! Perhaps I’m too conservative for you, Paul.

We just don’t want to mistake for a fact about human nature what we’ve been merely brought up to take for granted.

Right. Which is why this is actually a fact about human nature and is why, well, it appears that Europeans are farther along in denying human nature than are Americans. Not that this should come as a surprise to conservatives.

Pshaw, tell us you didn't laugh, at least a little. jlohnt used a selective quote to willfully misrepresent what I wrote. That's a capital intellectual crime in my world; he made himself fair game as well as also providing an easy target. I will acknowledge a certain laziness in picking the low hanging fruit. You should also cut me some slack as you of all people should remember that every day I get closer to someone deciding I should be dehydrated to death :).

"Last we heard from him on this subject he was lecturing me about claims of knowledge of lunatic motives..."

Should I not have been clear, my point was that we don't know and likely will never know just what sends any given lunatic in his chosen direction.

"But the part that the Left is quite fully clueless about is that there are differing casts of mind, which spring from biological and physiological sources, and issue in socially, politically, economically and philosophically important consequences, when one considers the subject of men and women."

No, a small part of the "left" is "fully clueless" as to gender distinctions. I believe most folks, left, center, and right, who are outside the thrall of neurosis and ideology acknowledge the reality of those distinctions. The issue in a free society is the proper role of those distinctions and the validity of any formalized limitations that result. In too many patriarchal societies all the gender distinctions seem to do is empower the men to be bullies, layabouts and slackers.

"Male and female he made them is a profound statement, not a mere detail against the towering edifice of abstract equality."

Maybe in some dispensations but we live in a secular society, where republican virtue dictates strict limitations on the translation of things derived from concepts that are merely theological into the broader body politic. A society that imposes excessive gender roles and thereby limits the productivity of 50% of the population gets what it deserves.

As Ilion's posts clearly demonstrate, there are going to be wide individual differences within members of the same gender (either her sister is careless and indifferent or she is way over protective) and a free society is going to have to respect those internal differences. (Being as gentle as I am able, might I suggest that if ones concerns lead small children to play one, those concerns might be excessive.)

Both statements are merely parents pushing their personal anxieties onto their children. One of the most damaging things that has gone down in American culture over the past few decades is the destructive concern over the self-esteem of our children. When comparison testing with the children of other nations is done, our children's self esteem is up at the top and their actual performance is near the bottom. "Self-esteem" and gender roles, are both enemies of civil society.

The threat from strangers has been way overblown and is actually a part of the "baby on board", playdate, watch their precious self-esteem culture that has emotionally crippled the recent generation.

Statistically the threat to children is from family and friends. I see too many young adults who haven't grown up and who will likely never grow up because they and their self esteem were over protected. Oh, and if you put your precious spawn on a leash be sure to have some kibbles in your pocket.

"Evidently you think you can get away with it and appear smart. Don't quite know why that is supposed to be"

Now,now. It's likely because I have the old-fashioned notion that assertions should be backed up with something substantial and not just be thrown out with the expectation that they will be blindly accepted.

This is one of the drawbacks of approaching public policy on a linear, first principles, seamless garment basis. It is quite possible to support some kind of universal health care and oppose oppressive gun bans. They are two entirely different issues.

Defining American Exceptionalism as crawling under a rock and dying if you can't afford health care isn't really what we are about, I hope. It is likewise possible to favor hate crime enhancements to criminal acts and oppose hate crime legislation that crosses into first Amendment territory.

Why not try explaining how your slippery slopes work. All I see are the underpants gnomes at work.

(The charges were dropped in the Tulsa case after a jury found the man mentally competent. The Oklahoma hate crime laws, unlike those in Europe and the U.K., require an overt criminal act.)

No one can possibly deny that Al's last comment said some very conservative things, so I feel my job is 3/4 done already. The poor guy is a conservative but knows it not.

Now then, consider these two arguments:

A. we live in a secular society, where republican virtue dictates strict limitations on the translation of things derived from concepts that are merely theological into the broader body politic. A society that imposes excessive gender roles and thereby limits the productivity of 50% of the population gets what it deserves.

We have a strong implication that to encourage gender roles in society reduces to something only theological in character, and thus out of order in the court of public opinion.

B. I believe most folks, left, center, and right, who are outside the thrall of neurosis and ideology acknowledge the reality of those distinctions. The issue in a free society is the proper role of those distinctions and the validity of any formalized limitations that result. In too many patriarchal societies all the gender distinctions seem to do is empower the men to be bullies, layabouts and slackers.

Note that the simple citation of a biblical passage stating gender distinctions is enough to put me, according to Al, in the realm of "concepts that are merely theological"? Really? In B. you yourself acknowledge "the reality of those distinctions." However might I reconcile this contradiction in two paragraphs?

Perhaps Al actually understands himself to be making theological claims. Is he delivering himself of theological assertions in disguise? Folks, we never knew it but Al was a traveling preacher. No, can't be that.

Of course we do, finally, agree that "The issue in a free society is the proper role of [gender] distinctions and the validity of any formalized limitations that result." So that's good. Agreement. But if we're talking only about disagreements over details out of a larger social understanding that forced equality can't happen, where do you get off calling me names and implying some furtive hatred of femininity?

Also, unless there is some attempt a humor that went over my head, this is just despicable: Oh, and if you put your precious spawn on a leash be sure to have some kibbles in your pocket.

That to me is so egregious as to be evidence of something darker and uglier. "Spawn"? Maybe you can take your theological-only assertions -- the theology of negation and nihilism which was the professed principle of Loughner, if you'll excuse a certain laziness -- and realize that we need "strict limitations on the translation of things derived from concepts that are merely theological into the broader body politic."

To deny the immortal soul is no less a philosophical supposition than to accept it. Your diminution of the human soul is as theological as it gets.

Civilization involves (among other things) men submitting their more animal sexual urges to the rhythms of femininity. Especially when we have the sense to consider human sexuality in its fullness (that is, including procreation and the rearing of children) the male role is fundamentally a submissive one. Which means that healthy civilizations must permit and encourage ways for the male nature, which in sexuality is forbidden its deepest desires, to find full expression. Historically, the military, scholarship, business and fatherhood were our common outlets for men. Part of our ruin is the coerced submission of these things to the feminine patterns as well.

Using the term "submissive" in this sense is unnecessarily provocative. There is nothing "submissive" about male sexuality. The Bible explicitly, in terms that philosophy and culture cannot argue away, states that the relationship between husband and wife is the same as between Christ and the Church. There is no submission--none--even implied in Christ's relationship with the Church. The idea of Jesus submitting to the Church, rather than leading and shepherding it is simply nonsensical.

This heretical idea of "servant leadership" that is popular in a number of evangelical churches is something that conservative Christians must reject. Christian men are not called to "submit" their sexuality to anything, but rather to use it in the model that God created it (which is neither submissive in any sense nor promiscuous).

Using the term "submissive" in this sense is unnecessarily provocative.

Okay, fair enough. My purpose was to get across the point that feminine rhythms embrace the mystery of creation, new immortal souls entering the world, far more profoundly than masculine rhythms. Thus if we understand human sexuality as more than a ten minute coupling but also the result: family and children, we find the female partaking of it more deeply than the male. It was only very recently that a man could definitely and without any doubt know who his offspring are.

So I overstated my point to make it a touch shocking. Guilty as charged.

Ephesians 5 says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which is the very image of "servant leadership," so I stand by that phrase.

Mike T., I don't know about submission to the rhythms of femininity, but submission to God and His will is definitely something men are supposed to do - with their sexuality, with everything. Submission, rightly ordered, is always a virtue.

Paul's choice of words is not altogether wrong, either. The ordinary passions of men do need to be subdued lest they wreak a great deal of social havoc. Feminine domesticity is one very powerful and effective means of achieving that.

Thanks for the link. I wish I knew more about American history to be able to appreciate your article better, despite a probably abstraction-intoxicated mind; but you do have a way with words, and I have a soft spot for humility too.

‘No one can possibly deny that Al's last comment said some very conservative things, so I feel my job is 3/4 done already. The poor guy is a conservative but knows it not.’

If this is the case I feel ‘my job’ is perfectly done! I wonder if you recognise a fellow-conservative here:

Mike T., I don't know about submission to the rhythms of femininity, but submission to God and His will is definitely something men are supposed to do - with their sexuality, with everything. Submission, rightly ordered, is always a virtue.

The reason I said Paul's use of the word "submissive" in that context was provocative is that "submission" carries a particular connotation with respect to human sexuality and relationships that is not altogether compatible with the one you just used. I know what you mean, and I agree with it. The point, which is important for the sake of discussion, is that even as man submits himself (including his sexuality to God), he does not "make his sexuality submissive."

Ephesians 5 says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which is the very image of "servant leadership," so I stand by that phrase.

It also says,

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The form of submission that Ephesians 5 expects of men is not the form of "submissiveness" that is implied when discussing sexual submissiveness or submissive behavior in a general context. Most Americans, even many in the church, do not understand the nuance here. This is how we have come to the point where men are sermonized to the effect that to be a Christian husband, they must become milquetoast nice guys who subordinate themselves to their wife's every "need" rather than be a leader in the mold of Christ.

The "servant leadership" that is taught is taught in such a way, in too many cases, that ends up making a man abdicate his position as the "head of the household" who has the final authority over his family. I would like to think that we can agree at the very least that it is not acceptable for a Christian husband to ever abdicate that position to "let" his wife run the family or "have an equal say" (which ends up becoming a burden for her which goes outside the natural order).

Now, tying that back to the original point of this thread, men instinctively know that it is their natural duty to protect their family. This doesn't arise from some sort of "bodyguard instinct," but comes from an instinctive understanding that a man is supposed to be head of his family. One of the fundamental responsibilities of that duty is to protect those under his care. Just as Christ protects His church, a husband has an equivalent duty to his wife and children.

Liberals attack all of these instincts because a realization of one may lead to another, and then another and another until men start to act according to what nature and God intended.

Paul, do you think Baroness Warsi means to be a conversation stopper, or was I too cryptic?!

Look, I do think that ‘exceptionalism’ involves incurring huge costs; but let’s leave my prudery aside and see what we achieve in exchange: OK, trying to protect is ‘natural’. But people will try to protect what others try to usurp; so usurping seems no less natural than protecting. Consider what you’d like to say about male sexuality: Lydia can’t mean that people are blameworthy for ‘denying human nature’ if they refuse to legislate as a right each and every human tendency which is arguably ‘natural’! So if being ‘natural’ can’t be the whole story what’s the rest of the story? Because that’s where what does the work here must be.

I think it’s great if you, al and I can all agree over gun policy in the US; I see real value in that and don’t want to lose sight of what’s valuable. But if the only way I can integrate agreement with a person in my scheme of things involves denying that person is American or male or liberal or whatever they define themselves by, or if the only way I can explain disagreement with another involves that person is a ‘perv’ of sorts, then I think that would be a great pity. Don’t you?

The Baroness Warsi speech is really outside the compass of this discussion, wouldn't you say?

Mike T and I do not agree in every nuance, but his remarks highlight the much greater distance between someone like me and folks on the secular Left. The idea of "nature" includes a purpose or end, a telos in even such messy things as human social relationships. Thus both of us can say that men are called "to act according to what nature and God intended," while it is doubtful that the secular Left will suffer that formulation to achieve public status.

"...while it is doubtful that the secular Left will suffer that formulation to achieve public status."

Which is why I find your reply somewhat perplexing. Whatever gender differences there may be are matters of fact and can be quantified. There is also likely to be a goodly amount of variation within each gender group such that we will wind up with a fair amount of individual overlap between the genders. That is why those gender differences that rise to your "public status"- are likely to be few to non-existent.

Adults should be free, of course, to submit themselves to whatever they believe some god intended as long as public policy isn't violated. We should also be clear that indoctrinating children in such matters may rise to the level of unavoidable child abuse.

"To deny the immortal soul is no less a philosophical supposition than to accept it. Your diminution of the human soul is as theological as it gets."

I wasn't aware one had to prove a negative. You assume this "soul" and add all sorts of bells and whistles - in this case, gender distinctions of such significance that their imposition on non-submitting individuals is justified. I have no problem with belief, it's where one runs with it that may create some disagreement.

"That to me is so egregious as to be evidence of something darker and uglier."

Not so much. While I don't get all sentimental over rug-rats, their development does impinge on whether or not we continue to have a society that persists (and pays my Social Security and Medicare, i might add) or if we wind up in Mad Max world. Permissiveness and smothering are flip sides of the same coin. Either way the result isn't good. Read in context my point is obvious.

Oh, was your comparing Lochner and moi (and in a far less humorous manner, I might add) also a "low blow"?

‘men are called "to act according to what nature and God intended," while it is doubtful that the secular Left will suffer that formulation to achieve public status.’

Did you try ‘men and women’?! I have no problem with that statement; I’m just not privy to intentions other than my own, which is why I liked that metaphor you quote in your article about ‘groping’ for truth across the gulf of transcendence; nice stuff! I don’t quite see how the formula could help us settle the ‘right to bear arms’ question e.g. There’s nothing ‘natural’ about guns in particular as a means of protection; one could go down the gym and build muscle. And whether the need to protect is ‘natural’ or not, one can use guns to protect what one has usurped. I could use a gun as a nutcracker, I guess. And the telos people who make guns have in mind is probably to make a profit. There are also those who are pacifists or think we should turn the other cheek. That I don’t see the line of argument doesn’t mean one can’t be constructed; I won’t lobby the European Parliament over gun-ownership before I see it! - but I think it’s significant that I wouldn’t favour a departure from the constitutional status quo in the US either, and that al can discern a line of argument.

Warsi is co-chair of the Conservative Party and a cabinet minister who sits in the House of Lords; as ‘mainstream’ as you can get. The speech actually marks a departure from previous government policy in the UK: 'I'm sorry, we don't do God.' That was Labour. But whatever you and the Baroness might quarrel over will certainly not be whether ‘men are called to act according to what nature and God intended’; I expect that’s clear enough. So I would be interested to know whether you can recognise in Warsi a fellow-conservative - and hinted why I think it matters - but if this goes beyond the scope of this thread you don’t have to; some other time perhaps.

But we've all seen before that it is insincere. This is a very old and transparent song and dance for us.

We all know for a fact, for instance, that if the Alabama Governor were to begin a campaign for a more progressive tax code, openly citing an Christian theology student for his reasoning, Al will not object, despite the fact that public policy is impacted. We all know he will support me if, citing St. Thomas Aquinas and Scripture, I appeal for firm new usury laws. All the bluster in the world about "imposition on non-submitting individuals" does not matter when he prefers the policy. He will, off at the end, take children away from parents if they "indoctrinate" them in poppycock notions of the soul with "all sorts of bells and whistles - in this case, gender distinctions." Presumably he means situations of grave depravity, but really, who can say? Given the sneers he reserves for theistic formulations he dislikes, I can't say that my mind is characterized by a particularly trusting attitude about his respect for religious liberty.

So Al is emphatically not against imposition; we know that from his own statements. He is quite prepared to bring coercion to enforce his preferences.

And indeed Al's criterion is his preference in policy, not whether the argument for the policy springs from secular or theological sources. He cares not a lick if someone provides theological reasoning for a position he approves. The secular/theological distinction is a rhetorical convenience, not a principle of conduct, and it vanishes from view the moment it is no longer convenient.

I don’t quite see how the formula could help us settle the ‘right to bear arms’ question

Overseas, I'm not using the formula to settle that question. If my purpose were to settle that question, I'm not sure what sense it would make to launch off on this gender difference tangent.

Again, I would make no distinction in law between men and women bearing arms. That Al insisted on implying otherwise should not confuse you. I believe that both men and women have a right to bear arms, and that the burden is on the state to sufficiently impeach the qualifications for exercising that right. (I have no problem with convicted felons being prevent from firearms purchases, for instance, even if the felony never involved firearms.)

‘I believe that both men and women have a right to bear arms, and that the burden is on the state to sufficiently impeach the qualifications for exercising that right.’

How about this then: ‘European states do recognise a qualified right to bear arms to men and women who are members of the armed forces, which forces do not necessarily include the Police.’ It sounds like a word game to me, but it could be an alternative 'fix'.

‘I'm not sure what sense it would make to launch off on this gender difference tangent … That Al insisted on implying otherwise should not confuse you.’

I’ll admit I can’t fully follow all the conversations here; I lack in background for one. But the first comment I recall on ‘field-levelling’ came from Firefox, not al. The evidence is one may be better off facing an armed man rather than an armed woman; and where women are allowed to bear arms, then it's an implication of the ‘protection’ argument - intended or unintended - that ‘Women need a gun, not a man’; that's why I sought clarification.

I assume what you wouldn’t mind is convicted felons being prevented from firearms purchases after they’re released from prison, not while serving a sentence. But I guess you don’t mind convicted felons enjoying full health-care benefits at taxpayers' expense while in prison; it’s only for ordinary, decent people who struggle to make a living and raise a family that healthcare becomes a ‘debate’. That’s something people in Europe have a hard time comprehending. It also seems ironic that, having got out of their way to build a constitutional ‘firewall’ between state and organised religion Europeans never much bothered with, Americans may now be seeking to build fireproof tunnels across.

How about this then: ‘European states do recognise a qualified right to bear arms to men and women who are members of the armed forces, which forces do not necessarily include the Police.’ It sounds like a word game to me, but it could be an alternative 'fix'.

I fail to see what this would "fix." It merely says that soldiers and sailors may bear arms as well as police -- but most citizens are not members of the military and will remain without the protection of firearms. There would be a few more armed people, I suppose, as this *seems* to mean that an off-duty soldier or sailor could be armed (though I am not sure what is meant by "qualified"; it could mean only when they are on duty!) -- but there are no such folk in my neighborhood, for example. If someone breaks into my house, I want to us to be able to protect ourselves, and a gun is the only certain option -- my husband is somewhat disabled but can handle a gun just fine, and I am certainly not capable of taking on an intruder except with a weapon that avoids close contact. Calling the police probably means they would get to try to solve the murders. Somehow that just doesn't satisfy me.

What Overseas apparently struggles with is a set of statements that most of us would interpret to mean something like

--women have a special need for firearms because of their physical weakness,

--men have a natural desire to be able to own firearms because of their natural desire to protect their families

but that do _not_ mean

--therefore, only men (or only women) should be allowed to own firearms.

The distinction isn't really that difficult, but Overseas is a bit (!) prone to implausible interpretations and attempts to draw out what she _thinks_ are "implications" of other people's statements. Hence, the odd questions about gender and firearms sales.

Suffice it to say, Overseas, we can think of good reasons, stemming from gender, for _both_ men and women to value the right to keep and bear arms. Plus and on top of that, we can think of good reasons for citizens of any gender, just because they are wise human beings, to value this right. So we've got reasons every which way. Perhaps that will clear everything up.

By the way, I had intended to add that I agree with Paul's original post about the drive of men to protect their families. My husband is unable to financially provide for us, but he has made very sure that we are as safe as we can possibly be in our home, including teaching me and our children to use firearms, and also making it quite clear that he will always be the first line of defense for us. He is quite willing to lay down his life if need be, but he realizes that it is better to be armed so that he doesn't end up dead and we remain in danger from the intruder -- in other words, a baseball bat just isn't sufficient when there is a high probability that an intruder might have a firearm. It's a simple conclusion, really, it seems to me. Where danger exists, any man worthy of the name will do what it takes to keep his loved ones safe from it.

"We all know for a fact, for instance, that if the Alabama Governor were to begin a campaign for a more progressive tax code, openly citing an Christian theology student for his reasoning, Al will not object..."

As I live to serve, I shall try once again. Paul, for the umpteenth time, I don't care where an idea originates. If we are going to employ the power of the state to carry it out, there needs to be a compelling reason to do it that goes beyond theology. As I am outside your dispensation, I am under no obligation to accept a seamless garment.

Hence, I reject your theologically derived positions on same sex marriage because you can't supply an acceptable reason beyond "this is what God wants". With usury and rent-seeking, on the other hand, there are such reasons and therefore we can agree on doing something.

"And indeed Al's criterion is his preference in policy, not whether the argument for the policy springs from secular or theological sources."

Well, yeah! Why would I choose that of which I didn't prefer? If, based on my sense of the political economy, cutting federal spending in a balance sheet recession will prove harmful, then why would I choose to obsess on the deficit?

Hence, I reject your theologically derived positions on same sex marriage because you can't supply an acceptable reason beyond "this is what God wants". With usury and rent-seeking, on the other hand, there are such reasons and therefore we can agree on doing something.

Are you saying your positions are completely void of moral reasoning?

More likely you really mean to admit that your theology begins and ends with "this is what Al wants."

‘but Overseas is a bit (!) prone to implausible interpretations and attempts to draw out what she _thinks_ are "implications" of other people's statements.’

Thanks, this must be one of the kindest things you’ve said about me Lydia; understatement, sense of humour I appreciate it all, but perhaps that makes two of us. So here's how I see it, again: If ‘men have a natural desire to be able to own firearms because of their natural desire to protect their families’, then it is remarkable that gun-ownership ipso facto levels the field, and arguably gives women a slight advantage. Of course children are physically weak and vulnerable and men may still need to protect them, but if the gun’s in mum’s hands she’ll likely do a better job of it. So it is an ironic implication of the 'protection' argument for gun-ownership that, in the process of seeking to protect those weaker than they are, males dis-empower themselves vis-à-vis females by empowering them. If this is an argument for owning a gun, it makes a protector redundant once you have the gun.

‘So we've got reasons every which way.’

I’m sure you do. Wise human beings realise that not everyone’s wise all of the time; that the unwise have the right to bear arms makes the wise value it.

Paul, for the umpteenth time, I don't care where an idea originates. If we are going to employ the power of the state to carry it out, there needs to be a compelling reason to do it that goes beyond theology. As I am outside your dispensation, I am under no obligation to accept a seamless garment.

Al, you're just avoiding the argument with all this shucking and jiving.

Let us recall the context of this debate: gender differences and how they should be viewed in light of policy and social state*.

I have a purely secular "compelling reason," one "that goes beyond theology," one that, indeed, makes no reference to theology at all, for thinking that gender differences must be acknowledged and humbly reckoned with, when we come to consider what is wise and proper for our public square in this country.

My reason is empirical fact. What's more, empirical fact to which you have grudging stipulated. I mean the empirical fact of differences between men and women -- differences of biology, physiology, psychology; differences most astonishingly evident in the realm of procreation.

Policy should conform to observable fact. That is my compelling reason.

This is the argument you will not reckon with. You'd rather pretend that you can know with certainty that my ideas spring from theology alone, and can safely be ignored.

Notice, too, that I have decidedly not said something like "gender differences must drive every decision, must crown every institution and pursue every individual until conformity is achieved." On the contrary, gender difference compose a mere fraction of the range of observable fact with which we must reckon. Nevertheless, it is precisely in the area of family and child-rearing where this particular set of facts has the most observable impact.

Now, in the context of this post, it is puzzling as you why you reject my reasoning, given your agreement with me on (a) the right to bear arms and (b) the empirical fact of gender differences. I would really like to know why you reject my reasoning, but since you simply refuse to even entertain the reasoning, I cannot say why you reject it. I am left to wonder.

I suspect the answer would take some form of: even observable fact has to yield to the higher ideal of equality. That would at least permit you to accept the facts but still insist on the principle. But then of course (a) I would inquire into the source of your belief in equality and (b) you cannot possibly deny that your policy imposes; it's whole purpose is to impose.

That would be a discussion worth having, but so far your reluctance to reason prevents it.

Overseas, perhaps you suppose me to have a low opinion of Europeans. I can assure that this is not so. I have, for instance, long found the common trope on the American Right of badmouthing Europeans tedious and unhelpful, especially in the context of foreign policy. It is true that I have a very low opinion of the EU as a governing structure, and that I have grave concerns about the moral trajectory of the West as a whole, but I do not hold Europeans out for particular ridicule.

___________________
* I take the phrase "social state" from Tocqueville, who used it very shrewdly to indicate that structure of mores and prescriptions which, though never actually legislated, still fill up the lives of citizens as a felt obligation.

‘Overseas, perhaps you suppose me to have a low opinion of Europeans.’

Not at all; nor that you wouldn’t be entitled to that opinion if you did. But al’s not European, I guess, and moreover agrees with you over the right to bear arms. What I’d object to is the presumption or conclusion that everyone - irrespective of whether they disagree with me or agree with me - is a ‘perv’ of sorts just because they differ wrt some variable I award the elevated status of being essential, sinequa non or whatever. One reason I’d object is that calling another a ‘perv’ is just too easy: The compliment can be returned just as easily, and settles nothing. Which would leave us exactly nowhere, except it fosters hostility - for the sake of hostility per se it seems, since it's independent of whether there’s disagreement or agreement! The worst of all possible worlds? It just seems absurd and self-defeating to kick at the opportunity of ‘doing business’ with people we’re in agreement with; for no apparent reason other than valuing antagonism in its own right. American pragmatism can settle matters on the ground the moment we condescend to climb down from the heights of the several cloud-cuckoo-lands we all love to inhabit; and dare to admit that we don’t demonstrably possess ‘final truth’, and that this doesn't often make such a great difference for practical purposes anyway.

Now, in the context of this post, it is puzzling as you why you reject my reasoning, given your agreement with me on (a) the right to bear arms and (b) the empirical fact of gender differences. I would really like to know why you reject my reasoning, but since you simply refuse to even entertain the reasoning, I cannot say why you reject it. I am left to wonder.

It's not puzzling at all. al is a leftist. Leftists are not interested in honest and reasoned debate. They are interested in power. al will never engage an argument in which he is not sure that he will be able to advance leftism. Conservatives need to understand this point about the Left generally.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.